0465039146-RM

12/5/06

354

12:31 AM

Page 354

notes to chapter five

16. Shawn C. Helms, Translating Privacy Values with Technology, Boston University
Journal of Science and Technology Law 7 (2001): 288, 299.
17. Ipanema Technologies, Automatically discover applications running over your network. Available at link #15.
18. iProtectYou Pro Web Filter v7.10. See link #16.
19. Nmap (Network Mapper). See link #17.
20. American Library Association v. Pataki, 969 F. Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), cited in
Michael Geist, Cyberlaw 2.0, 44 Boston College Law Review 323, 32627 (2003).
21. Jack Goldsmith and Timothy Wu, Who Controls the Internet: Illusions of a Borderless
World (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 44.
22. MaxMind Home Page, available at link #18.
23. Hostip.info Home Page, available at #19.
24. Seth Finkelstein, Barbara Nitke and the National Association for Sexual Freedom v.
AshcroftDeclaration of Seth Finkelstein (last updated Fri April 28, 2006), available at link #20.
25. Platos Republic, Book II (Agoura Publications, Inc. 2001).

CHAPTER FIVE

1. Joel R. Reidenberg, Technology and Internet Jurisdiction, University of Pennsylvania

Law Review 153 (2005): 1951.
2. Since Code v1, there has been an extensive debate about whether government intervention will be needed to effect important public values. See, e.g., Thomas B. Nachbar, Paradox
and Structure: Relying on Government Regulation to Preserve the Internets Unregulated
Character, Minnesota Law Review 85 (2000): 215 (suggesting intervention needed); Neil
Weinstock Netanel, Cyberspace Self-Governance: A Skeptical View from Liberal Democratic
Theory, California Law Review 88 (2000): 395 (surveying and emphasizing democratic deliberation); Jay P. Kesan, Private Internet Governance, Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 35
(2003): 87 (surveying failed examples of private regulation); Thomas Schultz, Does Online
Dispute Resolution Need Governmental Intervention? The Case for Architectures of Control
and Trust, North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology 6 (2004): 71; Carl Shapiro, Will ECommerce Erode Liberty?, Harvard Business Review (May-June 2000): 195. (optimistic about
markets regulatory effect); Brett Frischmann, Privatization and Commercialization of the
Internet Infrastructure: Rethinking Market Intervention into Government and Government
Intervention into the Market, Columbia Science and Technology Law Review 2 (2000/2001): 1
(supporting intervention); Cass R. Sunstein, Code Comfort, New Republic, Jan. 10, 2002
(optimistic about market response); Henry H. Perritt, Jr., Towards a Hybrid Regulatory
Scheme for the Internet, University of Chicago Legal Forum 215 (2001) (supporting govt
backed private solutions); Jay P. Kesan and Andres A. Gallo, Optimizing Regulation of Electronic Commerce, University of Cincinnati Law Review 72 (2004): 1497 (brilliant integration
of game theory to understand when intervention is required).
3. Michael Geist, Cyberlaw 2.0, Boston College Law Review 44 (2003): 323, 332.
4. Transport for London, Congestion Charging. Available at link #21; Center for Transportation Studies, Londons Congestion Charge Cuts Traffic Delays, Spurs Bus Use
(December 2004), available at link #22 and link #23; Transport for London, London Congestion Charging Technology Trials. (February 2005), available at link #24.
5. See Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon, Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the
Internet (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996), 6263.
6. CALEA authorized distribution of $500 million to cover modifications to telecommunications systems installed or deployed before January 1, 1995. That was estimated to be